Hayes Panel Plays 'Celibate Men Lack Moral Authority' Card on Catholic Priest
Suffer me to begin with a suggestion: if you ever have the chance to hear the Rev. William Dailey of Notre Dame law school speak, jump on it. Dailey is a stunningly brilliant advocate, among the best I have ever encountered on any issue.
Dailey appeared on today's Up With Chris Hayes on MSNBC, where he masterfully made the case against the Obama administration's order forcing Catholic institutions to provide services that violate their moral principles. Predictably, the panel resorted to an ad hominem argument against him. Panelist Michaela Angela David implicitly, and Hayes himself explicitly, argued that celibate Catholic priests lack the moral authority to make arguments on the issues at hand. Dailey deftly turned the tables. Video after the jump.
Watch the fascinating exchange between Rev. Dailey and his liberal antagonists.
Note: at the end of the video clip, a panel member can be heard laughing off camera. I'll leave it to readers to decide whether she was laughing at Rev. Dailey.
MICHAELA ANGELA DAVIS: I was getting uncomfortable with often hearing "gravely immoral and injust" [a term Rev. Dailey had used to describe the Obama mandate] particularly around issues that women generally have to face, coming from men constantly that will never have to face this choice.
. . .
CHRIS HAYES: I want you to respond to one specific thing--two specific things. One is the argument that is made--and to me it's quite compelling--that it's a little hard, in a moral/secular conversation about a policy choice in civic society, to listen to the bishops, who are, by definition, a group of celibate men, right? There is a disconnect that I think is extremely difficult when we're having this debate for certain people who are listening to get over.
WILLIAM DAILEY: As to your first specific question, which I guess the heart of it is whether there's some kind of epistemic divide between the men who in the Church who proclaim this teaching, who are the bishops, who have the teaching office in the Church. I reject the notion that there's an epistemic divide, that the women panelists there can't talk to us and we can't talk to them, and use publicly available reasons, right? And yes, are these religious authorities? Sure. But President Obama was invoking religious authority at the prayer breakfast last week in favor of his largely liberal social agenda--the winning agenda as you would call it--and I haven't seen a hue and cry from most of the liberal side that the president shouldn't be invoking biblical principles, theological principles, principles that come from his faith, to support what are the correct means in society to achieve ends that we probably all agree are good for people: equality among men and women, equality among the races. So when the president invokes his own biblical and theological principles to do that, I say he's welcome to do so in the public square, and that's squarely within American tradition.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
⇒ Conversely . . .
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 10:57am.
Chris Hayes is simply hinting at President Obama's credentials in favoring Homosexual rights.
The logic even validates Baba Wawa's right to tell an adulteress to shut up.
Wow!
Submitted by Qtaug on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 11:55am.
Did you see Father Dailey just perform a monster DUNK on Hayes?
Using THAT logic
Submitted by Dave the mailman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:45pm.
It would only make sense that gays and lesbians can't have any input on abortion discussions.....
and people who don't pay taxes shouldn't have any say on how tax dollars gets spent....
We could go on and on
Only
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 11:22pm.
property owners should be allowed to vote on taxation.
Wow. Talk about unfair.......
Submitted by Herbster on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:13pm.
Totally unfair! We need a redistribution of intellect in this country. To put two nediamorons up against the Rev. Dailey to discuss ANYTHING is a slam dunk for the good Reverend. Aside from spouting the usual leftist banalities, I noticed that Miss David and Miss Hayes performed an equal number of arm-wavings during their recitations while Rev. Dailey sat calmly and responded calmly to their inanities - with zero arm waving. Watch the empty suits and skirts on MSNBC, CNN, etc., and arm waving seems to be the "In" thing. Aerobics for the elbow? Remember a few years ago when all the empty skirts wore glasses to give them a "More serious" look in a feeble attempt to appear credible?
The Hayes creature is a parody of a parody. The David creature appears to have plugged herself into a Chevy Volt for her hairdo. Nesting birds, anyone?
I'm surprised that they didn't bring on "Rev." Al to join in the debate. Or perhaps Sgt. Schultz or little Chrissy. Maddow, anyone? The list is endless.......
And lesbians should shut up about contraception.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 4:50pm.
Just following Hayes lead. Rachel Maddow must be an identical triplet--the other two sisters are Jay Carney and Chris Hayes.
What happens if this principle is adopted?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 8:21pm.
Men can't be expected to make moral and judicial judgments about "issues that women generally have to face," right?
So, why are women included on rape juries? How can women be expected to make moral judgments about "issues that men generally have to face"?
By the same logic, people who do not commit crimes are not suited to make the laws or sit as jurors on criminals, n'est-ce pas?
------------
"Epistemic divide"? You're talking over their heads, Father. ("Steamy divide? What's that, some kind of weird priest thing?")
-------------
BTW, Michaela Angela Davis is NOT the same Angela Davis of radical 60s fame. But to quote her short Wikipedia entry, "Michaela Angela Davis is a writer on urban style, race, gender and hip-hop culture in the United States." That's the textbook example of bringing a rubber knife to a gunfight.
STOP
Submitted by trahantg on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 9:30pm.
Since the "intimacy" shared by gay and lesbian couples CAN NOT produce children, then they have now been declared to be unfit to be parents.............DONE
Vets,:Gynecologists, Urologists?
Submitted by LaVallette on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 6:39am.
No human can ever be a veterinarian!
No male can be a gynecologists or obstetrician! ( or anyone who has never had a child for that matter)
No female can be a urologist! etc etc etc>
But then stupidity knows no bounds!!!